Updates from the Canadian Farm Enterprise Network, Canadian Farmers
for Justice and the Prairie Centre. Several of the items appearing here
originally appeared in an email list operated by Dwayne Leslie athttp://www.prairielinks.com.

web
posted April 24, 2000

Not available in Canada

By Craig Docksteader

Ever since the Act was passed in 1982, the Wheat Board has been subject
to the Freedom of Information Act. Requests for information are submitted
to the FOI officer, along with a small fee, and the information is made
available from the Wheat Board, within the designated time period. Information
requested could be found in files, manuals, databases, mailing lists or
publications, and can include working documents, correspondence, or records
such as submissions and reports. Over the years, many people have successfully
used the system to obtain information from the Wheat Board.

The FOI law ensures that Wheat Board information is released in a timely,
appropriate manner. It clearly lays out the process for obtaining information
along with responsibilities, timelines and even fines for those who do
not abide by the law. It provides producers, politicians, and the general
public the necessary mechanism to evaluate the performance of the Wheat
Board and ensure ongoing accountability.

There are, however, appropriate limits on what information can be obtained
under the law. The Freedom of Information Act specifically states that,
"A body corporate... is exempt from the operation of this Act in
relation to documents in respect of the commercial activities of the body
corporate."

Commercial activities are clearly defined as: "(a) activities carried
on by an agency on a commercial basis in competition with persons other
than governments or authorities of governments; or, (b) activities, carried
on by an agency, that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future
to be carried on by the agency on a commercial basis in competition with
persons other than government or authorities of governments."

If a record contains this kind of information, the Freedom of Information
Act requires that the record be made available after the exempt information
has been deleted. This prevents the "commercial sensitivity"
issue from being used as a smoke screen to hide all kinds of information
behind.

Personal information is also protected. You can get personal information
about yourself from the Wheat Board, but not about anybody else. This
would include specific salary figures as well as information on job performance,
evaluations, etc. This exemption ensures that accountability is achieved
while protecting personal privacy.

For 18 years the Wheat Board has operated under the Freedom of Information
Act. The ability of producers or the general public to obtain information
through the FOI process has not spooked the Wheat Boards customers,
nor has it jeopardized the Boards ability to successfully market
wheat. It continues to be a significant player in the world wheat export
market.

Regrettably, however, this Wheat Board is not the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is the Australian Wheat Board. While the Canadian Wheat Board bureaucrats
and directors continue to insist that they could not function under Canadas
Freedom of Information law (called the Access to Information Act), the
Australian Wheat Board has operated this way for almost two decades.

Secrecy advocates and lovers of big government like to tell us that bringing
the CWB under the Access to Information Act would destroy the Board. In
fact, theyve said it so often that many farmers are now convinced
it must be true. The Aussie experience tells us its not. Bringing
the CWB under the federal Access to Information Act would enhance the
Board, not harm it. Those who insist otherwise might be sincere, but theyre
sincerely wrong.

web
posted April 17, 2000

Species at Risk Act headed in the wrong direction

The federal governments Species at Risk Act, which was introduced
April 11 in the House of Commons, is headed in the wrong direction, according
to the Centre for Prairie Agriculture.

"Farmers and ranchers support the protection of endangered species,
providing it is done in an effective, responsible fashion," said
Craig Docksteader, Coordinator with the Centre. "Regrettably, this
law does neither."

"The track record in other jurisdictions has proven that voluntary,
cooperative measures work, while heavy-handed, punitive measures do not.
You cant marry these two approaches and come out with an effective
law," Docksteader said. "You have to enlist the voluntary support
of landowners through education and incentives, not by talking sweetly
with a stick behind your back."

Docksteader says that while the Ministers new endangered species
law is significantly better than the one introduced by the Liberal government
in 1996, the inclusion of mandatory regulation of habitat will significantly
erode the value of other provisions contained in the law.

"By threatening to impose restrictions on the normal use of private
property, incentives and compensation lose their effectiveness. Even the
remote threat of legal action will prompt some landowners to ensure that
no endangered species ever sets foot on their land. Effective endangered
species legislation should be voluntary, incentive-based, and non-regulatory."

Chicken little environmentalism

By Craig Docksteader

Since federal Environment Minister David Anderson introduced his new
endangered species law on April 11, the whining hasnt stopped from
environmentalist offices across the country. Spurred on by a sympathetic
mainline media, newspapers from Victoria to Toronto trumpeted the moans
and wails that the new Species at Risk Act isnt good enough and
endangered species will go extinct because of it. Youd almost think
that Chicken Little had come back as an environmentalist.

If there was any credibility to their claims, we might do well to sit
up and pay attention. But the fact is, what many environmentalists say
about Andersons Species at Risk Act is wrong. Although its
true that the law is a poor one, their wish list would only make it worse.

In a nutshell, the major environmental organizations say the proposed
law does not go far enough. They claim that it gives the federal cabinet
too much control over whether an endangered species will receive legal
protection and whether activities in its habitat will be regulated.

In their view, both of these protections should be automatic and mandatory.
If a species is deemed to be endangered, it should be immediately protected
by law with no consideration for economic, social or political factors.
Whether it is a mammal, a snail, a bug or a micro-organism would make
no difference. Furthermore, if the critter wanders onto your land occasionally
-- or just might, perhaps, one day wander onto it -- the use of your land
should also be immediately subject to government monitoring and regulation.

Because Canadians care about endangered species, this position can be
popular. Theres a kinda warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with it because
it leaves the illusion of protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
In reality, it is more likely to do the opposite. Thats why in spite
of those warm, fuzzy, feeings, the minister would be better off to listen
carefully to what the hard-line environmentalists are saying and then
do the opposite.

The track record in other jurisdictions has proven that when it comes
to protecting endangered species on private land, voluntary, cooperative
measures work, while heavy-handed, punitive measures do not. The U.S.
experience has repeatedly demonstrated that even the remote threat of
legal action will prompt some landowners to ensure that no endangered
species ever sets foot on their land. Its not necessarily a case
of "shoot, shovel, and shut-up", sometimes its just a matter
of plowing the habitat under before the government comes along and tells
you that you cant.

Even the promise of compensation is hollow when you have no choice in
the matter and any payments are unlikely to cover actual losses. Minister
Anderson has said repeatedly that he doesnt want the lure of potential
compensation to discourage landowners from taking voluntary preventative
measures to protect species. Consequently, hes talking about limiting
compensation so it isnt too attractive. Somebody should tell him
that these kind of skewed incentives wouldnt exist under a voluntary
system, no matter how attractive the compensation was.

While the environmentalists zeal may be commendable, their strategy
is not. They fail to realize that you cannot marry the two contrary approaches
of coercion and cooperation and come out with an effective law. Effective
endangered species legislation would enlist the voluntary support of landowners
through education and incentives, not by talking sweetly while carrying
a big stick.

Im happy to report that the sky is not falling. However if concerned
environmentalists continue to push in the direction they are going, they
may succeed in dislodging a piece or two.

web
posted April 10, 2000

Remembering Grandma

By Craig Docksteader

On Sunday April 2nd of this year, my Grandma Docksteader passed away
quietly in her sleep at 94 years of age.

Other than the fact that we will miss her, there was nothing sad about
the occasion. She had lived a full and long life, was of sound mind and
good health. She did not fear death, but was confident that she was prepared
to meet her creator. Her affairs were in order, her garden plot tidy,
and her possessions largely distributed before she drew her final breath.
It was time to go, and she was ready.

Having been asked to give the eulogy at the funeral, I spent some time
talking to family members about their memories of Grandma and reflecting
on the life that she had led. We talked about how -- like many others
-- Grandma came to Canada in the early 1900s. With no money to purchase
the usual fare, her parents worked their way over on a cattle boat, taking
six months to get here.

When they arrived in Calgary in 1910, Grandma was only five years old.
As the family moved all their earthly possessions from Calgary to Esther,
where they would homestead, Grandma was given the job of driving a team
of horses. Life on the prairies in the early years was no respecter of
age or gender -- everybody was needed in the bid to start a new life and
you did what needed to be done without complaining.

Years later, Grandma met Grandpa, and they married in 1933. During those
early years and many to follow, Grandpa worked on thrashing crews while
Grandma went to work cooking for the crew. Meanwhile, back at home, she
had cows to milk, chores to do, and sometimes two gardens to tend, while
raising one and later, two children.

Typical of her generation, though, Grandma was innovative. If there was
a job to be done, nothing stood in the way. Even off in the bush, with
no daycare down the street and yet much work to do, Grandma found a way
to keep track of her oldest child who was then less than four years of
age. She would tie a bell on him and send him off to play. The tinkling
of the bell made him easy to find and served as a warning device when
there was trouble brewing. When the bell stopped, it was time to go find
the child.

At least one winter was spent living in a tent, with snow piled against
the sides to help stay warm inside. Even after the house was built, Grandma
used to recall the thick layers of frost that would form on the inside
walls during the cold of winter. There were no luxuries, and sometimes
the basic necessities were scarce. Life was difficult, demanding, and
unforgiving. There were no guarantees, no safety nets, and none of it
came easy.

In many ways, Grandmas life was typical of a whole generation.
They came to this land, faced its challenges head on, and carved out a
life on the barren prairies -- not only for their generation, but for
all those who would follow. They knew what it was to start with nothing
and work hard for every nickel. They expected no handouts, yet were always
quick to give and help others, even when they barely had enough for themselves.
They knew what it was to raise a family with none of the comforts we take
for granted today, tirelessly giving of themselves to make a better life
for their children and grandchildren.

Because of them we are where we are today. And to them all we owe a debt
of gratitude.

web
posted April 3, 2000

CWB should leave marketing of organic grains alone

By Craig Docksteader

When the Sniders named their New Norway, AB family farm "Little
Red Hen Mills" after the popular children's fable, they probably
didn't know how prophetic the name would be.

The story is well-known. An industrious hen discovers some grains of
wheat as she is scratching about and recognizes an opportunity. Unable
to enlist her neighbours' help, she sets off on her own to work the ground
and plant the wheat. When harvest time comes, nobody's interested in pitching
in so she brings the crop in herself and mills it. Not until the bread
is baked and ready to be eaten does anyone show an interest in her venture.
Then, with the risk and hard work finished, everybody wants to share the
fruit of her labours.

After 14 years in the organic grain business, Steven Snider and his father
Robert are seeing the fable played out in front of their eyes. As Steven
puts it, "[organic] wheat has become a particularly valuable commodity,
and the Canadian Wheat Board is tripping over itself to 'eat the bread'."

Currently, organic growers of wheat or barley can market their product
by either going through the CWB's Producer Direct Sales procedure or delivering
directly to a grain company that has a licenced facility certified for
organic deliveries. Now the CWB is threatening to compete directly with
organic producers by marketing these grains itself and implementing separate
pools for organic grains.

If the CWB wants to help organic grain growers, it could easily do so
by simply granting no-cost export licences for organic wheat and barley.
This is how prairie-grown Pedigreed seed grain is handled, and how wheat
and barley is marketed when it is produced outside the CWB designated
area. Under the CWB legislation, the directors could authorize that the
same process be applied to certified organic grain. The existing certification,
inspection and audit process for organic products would prevent non-organic
grain from moving across the border under the pretense of being organic.

In a recent response to the CWB's proposals for organic marketing, the
Organic Special Products Group (comprised of over 100 grassroots organic
farmers from all prairie provinces) listed 18 reasons why organic grain
should be eligible for no-cost export licences and excluded from CWB marketing.
Among them were the following:

Organic markets are different than CWB markets;

Organic growers do not utilize or affect the CWB handling and transportation
system;

Organic sales are traditionally F.O.B. the farm, where the buyer assumes
all the risk and costs of transportation and handling;

The government's own 1996 Angus-Reid poll showed that 70 per cent
of prairie farmers felt organic grain should be kept outside the CWB
system;

Even the existing level of CWB involvement in organic marketing has
proven to be detrimental to the industry.

What organic grain growers have developed is a niche market. Exports
of organic wheat and durum for 1998-99 amounted to .09 per cent of total
CWB sales. Whereas CWB sales are made up of large volumes, organic sales
are mainly made in small lots and must be identity-preserved right up
until the customer receives delivery.

Ironically, it was Bob Roehle, head of corporate communications at the
CWB, who said it best when quoted in the March 22nd edition of the Financial
Post saying, "I don't know what niche marketing is when you're loading
a 100,000-ton tanker." Most organic grain growers would agree --
the CWB doesn't know what niche marketing is and isn't capable of pulling
it off.

Turning the CWB loose to take over the marketing of organic grains would
be like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Why not just give organic
growers the no-cost export licences they need and get out of their way.

web
posted March 27, 2000

What's wrong with this picture?

By Kevin Avram

Charles is one of my farmer friends. He and his wife, Shirley, live in
a great big house that's perched high on a hill, about 20 miles from town.
Their living room has 14-foot ceilings and the east wall of that living
room is covered with paintings. They're watercolor and oil paintings mostly.
Some of them are beautiful, others less so. The most dominant picture
is an oil painting of three horses pulling a plow.

When I was there recently Charles pointed it out to me and said, "What's
wrong with this picture?"

Although I looked at it a long time, I couldn't pick anything out. But
not wanting to give up I said, "Don't tell me! Don't tell me!"
I grew pretty frustrated, but in the end I had to admit that I couldn't
see anything about it that was inaccurate or misplaced.

"Argh," I groaned. It was an important lesson. I'd been trying
to figure out what was wrong with what I could see when I should have
been thinking about what I couldn't see.

About a week later I was visiting with my friend Craig. The subject of
the cash crunch in farming came up and the ongoing call there's been for
government support. We rattled off quite a list of what's taken place
this past while. It included: The BC farmer that drove his old combine
to Ottawa; hunger strikes and threats of hunger strikes; sit-ins at the
Saskatchewan Legislature; radio talk shows receiving a steady stream of
calls about the issue; politicians haranguing each other about it, blaming
the other guy for not doing enough. Even newspaper columnists were openly
staking out a position of support for government money.

As we talked about it I couldn't help but see parallels between that
horse picture at Charles' place and the way many people were reacting
to the farm income crunch. Charles' picture was missing what is at the
heart of the plowing operation -- the guy who steered and made all the
decisions about where to go and what to do. Likewise, the recent debate
on the farm income crisis overlooks what's at the heart of prairie agriculture
-- the behavior and performance of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB).

For thousands of farmers, almost every nickel they get comes from the
CWB. And, each year the CWB lays out tens of thousands of dollars on their
behalf in freight bills, demurrage bills, ship loading costs, laker tariffs,
pension benefits, severance packages, and literally hundreds of other
costs associated with the industry. They also use the farmer's money to
pay for every inefficiency that exists in the entire system, no matter
how small. Not one farmer in Canada is allowed to see or know the details
of these expenditures, yet when it came to a cash crunch, rather than
storming the CWB headquarters in Winnipeg wanting to know the details
of how $45 billion has been spent over the past ten years, the decision
is to immediately lean on Ottawa for money.

Some will undoubtedly argue that Ottawa has a responsibility for the
prairie grain industry. Maybe they're right, but that isn't the point.
The point is that something's wrong with this picture. Like that invisible
man in Charles' horse painting, the most significant aspect of the picture
-- that which steers and controls it -- is missing. And until you find
out the details of what's going on there, you're never going to know if
the right steps are being taken to ensure a healthy, prosperous, and accountable
industry.

Kevin Avram is a former director of the Prairie Centre/Centre for
Prairie Agriculture, and continues to sit as a member of the Prairie Centre's
Advisory Board.

web
posted March 20, 2000

Grain marketing around the world

By Craig Docksteader

Over the past couple of weeks, I have spent considerable time reviewing
information on the rain marketing and import systems in various countries
around the world. Some of the reports are from the U.S. Department of
Agricultures Foreign Agricultural Service, and some are from World
Grain Publication, a magazine which takes an international look at grain,
flour and feed. Still other sources include the Canadian Wheat Board,
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the McKinsey Report which examined western
Canadas grain handling and transportation system, and a report done
for the Western Grain Marketing Panel on "Changing Marketing Systems".

Although the reports cover a wide range of information and touch on many
issues, one dominant theme surfaces repeatedly: Over the last ten years
the agricultural industry around the world has been undergoing significant
-- and at times radical -- changes to make it more productive, efficient,
and competitive. Whether because of discontent with mediocre productivity
or because they were forced to make changes as a result of political realignments
or economic realities, country after country has been taking steps to
improve their position in the agricultural marketplace.

Almost without exception, the steps to improve the agricultural industry
have involved moving toward a deregulated, market-oriented agricultural
system. In some cases, outright privatization of grain import or export
systems has been embraced. Following are some examples of this trend that
is taking place around the globe:

Argentina: Deregulation and privatization of the grain industry began
in 1989. In the early 90s the Argentine National Grain Boards
monopoly on grain exports was terminated, and exporting turned over completely
into private hands.

Australia: Australia has privatized their Wheat Board and implemented
a dual domestic market, where the Wheat Board competes for farmers
business with the private grain trade. The Australian Barley Board has
also been privatized and has no export monopoly.

Brazil, Columbia and Mexico: All three countries privatized their grain
import systems in the early 90s.

Egypt: Egypt privatized its grain import functions in 1992.

Indonesia: In Indonesia, wheat imports are no longer controlled by the
state agency BULOG, but have been turned over to the private sector.

Japan: Grain policies in Japan have been gradually moving toward more
market orientation for some time, and recently announced that it will
be allowing millers to import some wheat directly from exporters, rather
than going through the government-controlled Japanese Food Agency.

Morocco: During the past decade, the Moroccan government privatized nearly
half of its 114 state companies and, in 1996, adopted laws allowing the
private sector to import wheat, barley and other grains directly.

South Korea: In South Korea, the government has been moving gradually
towards greater market liberalization. Grain import functions have been
privatized.

The list could go on: Jamaica, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Israel, Poland,
Hungary, Romania, Spain, Bangladesh, Portugal, Ghana, Turkey, Zimbabwe,
Kenya, Bulgaria, Philippines, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Ukraine, Venezuela,
and even Russia are downsizing their government involvement in agriculture
and moving towards a more market-oriented system. The trend is clear and
the results compelling: The agricultural industry becomes more efficient,
more productive, and more competitive the further it is removed from government
monopolies and over-regulation.

web
posted March 13, 2000

Grain marketing in Nova Scotia

By Craig Docksteader

Ninety-five percent of all wheat produced in Canada is grown in the western
provinces and marketed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Another four percent is grown in Ontario and marketed under the jurisdiction
of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. The final one percent
is split up between the remaining provinces and falls under a variety
of marketing schemes.

The smallest of these wheat producing provinces is Nova Scotia. From
1988 to 1997, total wheat production in Nova Scotia, consisting of both
winter and spring wheat, averaged only 7.2 thousand tonnes per year. In
comparison, during the same period, Manitoba's wheat production averaged
4,152 thousand tonnes per year, Alberta 6,789 thousand tonnes, and Saskatchewan
14,145 thousand tonnes. No matter which way you slice it, Nova Scotia
is an extremely small player in the marketplace.

With only a fraction of market share, some prairie producers would view
Nova Scotia producers as extremely vulnerable in the marketplace. Popular
mythology would say that without the strength of numbers, they have no
market power and risk being trampled by large corporate interests. They
should band together, establish a position of solidarity, and perhaps
even unite with other Canadian grain growers to present a single, powerful
marketing force.

Actually, such an arrangement wouldn't be all that difficult to pull
off. It's simply a matter of extending the Canadian Wheat Board's "designated
area" to include Nova Scotia. Section 40 of the CWB Act already makes
provision for such a move, by allowing the government to apply the Act
to wheat produced outside the existing designated area. The change could
be made by regulation, and doesn't even require debate or voting in the
House of Commons. Producers in Nova Scotia would then have single-desk
selling, compulsory pooling, and government guarantees on initial payments.

There's only one problem, though. Nova Scotia wheat producers don't see
it this way. In fact, Nova Scotia has been moving the opposite direction,
away from centralization and greater government control, toward privatization
and more producer control.

In 1997, Nova Scotia's provincial government privatized the operations
of the Nova Scotia Grain Marketing Board. Now called East Coast Commodities
Inc., the corporation operates as a voluntary grain marketing agency offering
services such as cleaning, weighing, drying, storage, forward pricing,
spot pricing, risk management, marketing, and -- for those who prefer
it -- price pooling.

For almost three years, ECCI has had to earn the business of Nova Scotia
wheat producers by competing head to head with other grain buyers. Producers
are free to pick the marketing agent of their choice or sell their grain
themselves on the open market. Those who prefer the cooperative pooling
approach to marketing have access to this option, while those who prefer
to go it on their own can do so as well. It's an arrangement that is commonly
referred to as dual marketing.

For some prairie farmers, this approach flies in the face of everything
they've been told about grain marketing: It should weaken, not strengthen
producers' market position; it should result in lower prices, less options
and poorer service, as farmers supposedly compete against each other to
sell their product.

In actual fact, if dual marketing doesn't work, it should have failed
first in Nova Scotia. Not only is it the smallest wheat producing province
in Canada, but local grain buyers can easily source grain from New Brunswick,
Maine, Ontario, Quebec, the U.S. and even Western Canada. Nova Scotia
farmers should be banging on the doors of the CWB asking to be let in.

But they're not. They're going the other direction. Maybe that tells
us something about dual marketing.

web
posted March 6, 2000

Fixed price contracts

By Craig Docksteader

The Canadian Wheat Board recently announced that it will be introducing
payment options for prairie farmers for the 2000-01 crop year. The new
program, called the Fixed Price Contract, lets farmers fix a price or
a basis for their wheat before the crop year begins. This means that instead
of waiting 18 months to see what the CWB pool returns will be, farmers
can lock in a price when the crop is still in the ground. Or, if they
prefer, they can lock in the basis and later commit to a futures price
prior to delivery.

At first blush, it sounds like a good idea. The CWB appears to be modernizing
and responding to the needs of prairie farmers. More payment options means
more flexibility. According to the CWB, this will allow producers to better
manage risk and cash flow on their farm.

Furthermore, for those who are quite content with the current pooling
system and payment method, there is no need to fear. The new plan does
not replace the existing process, and "will not have any impact on
CWB pool accounts". According to the Board's press release, the three
pillars of the CWB -- including price pooling -- remain intact.

For producers who want substantive change, however, the plan falls short.
While it may have significant optical value, it will have little practical
value. The price that farmers receive for their product under this plan
will have nothing to do with what the market is doing at the moment, and
everything to do with what the CWB thinks their final pooled price will
be. While a similar plan under the Ontario Wheat Board sets the cash price
according to the Chicago Board of Trade price, the CWB is going to arbitrarily
"fix" theirs to the mid-range of their Pool Return Outlook.

This means the program will not likely allow a farmer to realize any
better return than what could be achieved under the existing pooling system.
It virtually guarantees a lower price in exchange for the benefit of knowing
what the price will be and getting paid sooner. This might be what the
CWB calls risk management, but it's not what producers had in mind.

In fact, at no time over the last few years has there been any significant
demand for more payment options from the CWB. Most of the wide-spread
dissatisfaction with existing CWB policy has been focused on the need
for marketing options, not payment options. If producers have choice in
who markets their product, they'll have more payment options than 100
bureaucrats can dream up at an all-night board meeting. If the CWB was
made voluntary, prairie farmers would immediately have access to the best
risk management tools in the world, without having to implement cumbersome
and costly programs at farmers' expense.

It would appear that the CWB is trying to implement a system which emulates
both a cash market and a futures market. The problem is that because the
monopoly blocks any local market signals for wheat, you can't have a cash
market because you have no signals to give you a cash price. And if you
have no cash price, you can't have a true basis. Whereas basis normally
provides invaluable market information, the CWB's basis amounts to nothing
more than the total of your deductions from the sale price of your wheat.
It's kinda like calling a steer a bull. You can call it what you like,
but it's not going to be able to do the job it's supposed to.

web
posted February 28, 2000

Lets get out of here

By Craig Docksteader

I never expected to hear it from the National Farmers Union. In a recent
presentation to the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
the NFU made the case that agricultural subsidies in Europe (EU) have
not caused the farm income crisis by encouraging over-production.

In their brief, the NFU demonstrated how, according to crop production
statistics, there is no observable relationship between subsidy levels
and production rate increases. While wheat production over the last twenty
years rose significantly in heavily subsidized EU countries, it rose at
comparable rates in relatively unsubsidized countries such as Australia
and Argentina, and to a lesser degree, Canada. Production in the U.S.
over the same period actually fell, in spite of it being the second most-heavily
subsidized country.

The NFUs position represents a significant departure from the approved
Canadian Wheat Board line that foreign subsidies are one of the key factors
pushing up worldwide grain stocks and pushing down prices. CWB CEO Greg
Arason has been preaching this message at every opportunity, complete
with an impressive audio-visual presentation of stats and graphs. These
slides have popped up at other farm meetings across the prairies, as CWB
directors attempt to explain the prairie cash crunch and deflect criticism
from federal policy on grain exports. Now, after checking the numbers
for themselves, the NFU appear to have discovered that EU subsidies may
be no more than a convenient scapegoat for more significant problems right
on our own doorstep.

For farmers who want constructive changes to prairie agriculture rather
than the usual bandaid proposals, the unbalanced focus on international
grain subsidies has at times been irritating. Instead of cleaning up their
own backyard, politicians and bureaucrats have been happy to focus attention
on policies in the EU and the US, content to merely tinker with the problems
created by their own public policy.

So while an inefficient grain transportation and handling system continues
to suck money out of farmers pockets, federal and provincial politicians
appear content with shuffling the same players like some kind of shell
game instead of making substantive change. While industries everywhere
are investing in "vertical integration", where the players claim
more of the value-added chain, the CWB is blocking prairie farmers from
doing the same and spending millions to encourage the export of more raw
product which is sold below the cost of production. While farmers are
looking for options and choices in marketing and risk management, a significant
portion of the prairie grain industry is shackled by archaic federal laws
which insist government can do it better.

Regrettably, however, the NFUs insight into the current farm situation
breaks down before it gets this far. Having rightfully dismissed foreign
subsidies as the primary cause of the farm income crisis, they turn their
guns toward their usual foe, the free market. "The market is failing
farmers..."; "...farmers are making too little because others
are taking too much..."; "There is no shortage of money in the
agri-food system there is merely a maldistribution of money." Every
player in the whole industry gets blamed for causing the income crisis
by price-gouging and leaving the farmer without enough to survive on.

Perhaps without realizing it, the NFU put their finger on the primary
problem in prairie agriculture -- a lack of choice for producers and subsequent
lack of competition between those who want farmers business. Regrettably,
however, their proposed solutions are the very root of the problem. They
advocate more regulation, less privatization, more government control
and less freedom. In a nutshell it amounts to more of everything that
got us to where we are, which results in less of everything that would
get us out of here.

Somehow I dont think we should go down that road again.

Craig Docksteader is Coordinator with the Prairie Centre/Centre for
Prairie Agriculture, Inc. "Where Do We Go From Here" is a feature
service of the Prairie Centre.